Mr. Speaker, if for no other reason, this recommendation for a better process to scrutinize and select officers of Parliament is to avoid embarrassment for candidates. What has clearly happened in this place is that someone of great record and accomplishment has been embarrassed by the way this was handled.

I think this is a gift to future candidates and a gift to the Liberal government. There is a better way of doing things. We should recall that the Harper Conservatives actually started out their government with an appointments process, but they killed it because their suggested appointee was rejected.

I think it is very important to go back to having an appointments process. I think this is a reasonable proposal. Even the United Kingdom has a totally independent commission that deals with appointments. It is totally separate from Parliament. This is a reasonable compromise, and I hope all members in the House give it consideration, because these officers of Parliament, and even the ones who are not yet officers of Parliament, such as the parliamentary budget officer, deserve to have a more neutral process for selection.

Mr. Speaker, reports out of the government say that it is having a hard time with the appointments process. It is having a hard time finding viable candidates. It is having a hard time appointing people to some really critical positions, like people who run our elections and the auditor General, and on and on, even with lots of notice.

If the process is better, it would encourage and help more candidates come forward. If the process looks like it will be public and potentially embarrassing, the list will get shorter and the quality less.

I know the Liberal House leader is speaking in a bit. This offer is made in good faith. We heard one Liberal suggest a change and another appointments process. We are just starting with the eight officers of Parliament. They are incredibly critical. We want a good process so we can encourage the right people to come forward.

The Harper government first brought in of a broader appointments process, which was a good one. Hundreds of these patronage appointments go out. They get very little vetting and many of them are made along partisan lines, which is very unfortunate. Canadians do not get good value for money with that process.

Bardish ChaggerLiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to take part in the debate today and to speak to the motion by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

The member is proposing that a subcommittee would have the authority to permanent block any nomination by the government to fill these positions. The proposal would apply to an officer of Parliament, the Clerk of the House, the parliamentary librarian, the parliamentary budget officer, or the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

I obviously cannot support a motion that would allow this small subcommittee the ability to essentially veto the appointment of an officer of Parliament without having it voted on by the whole House of Commons, and in doing so, limit Parliament's oversight of the appointments of officers and agents of Parliament. However, I do believe this is an important debate and one that must be put into broader context.

In February 2016, the government announced a new, more rigorous approach to Governor in Council appointments that would apply to the majority of full-time and part-time positions on commissions, boards, crown corporations, agencies, and tribunals across the country. It would also include officers and agents of Parliament.

One of the major differences with respect to our new approach to appointments is that it creates opportunities for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. All interested Canadians can now submit their applications for the positions posted on the government's appointment website.

For example, the position of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is currently posted on the GIC appointments website for all interested Canadians to apply. The notice of opportunity clearly outlines the education, experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities required to fill this key leadership position.

What is also new is the use of recruitment strategies to attract qualified candidates who are representative of Canada's diversity in terms of linguistic, regional, and employment equity groups, as well as—

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, with apologies to my friend for interrupting. I thought I heard something in her opening statement, and this would be important. She said that the motion we put forward today would limit Parliament from being able to vote and being involved with the appointment of these officers. It is clearly in the motion, as we have stated, that Parliament remains the hiring and firing committee of all officers in Parliament.

I do not want the government House leader to construct and perhaps take us down a path that does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to addressing the concern raised by the member. I have read the motion, and I appreciate the opportunity to debate it in this place. That is exactly what we were elected to do, so I look forward to the discussion of today.

In the context of agents of Parliament, as indicated on the Parliament of Canada website, there are eight agents of Parliament. The Auditor General was first created in 1868. The Chief Electoral Officer was established in 1920. The Commissioner of Official Languages was established in 1970. The Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner were both created in 1983. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner were both established in 2007. The Commissioner of Lobbying was created in 2008.

Each officer of Parliament is given a unique mandate and carries out the duties set out in the legislation. Each one of them plays a crucial role in our democracy. They also share some common threads that are worth keeping in mind today.

By definition, an agent of Parliament reports to parliamentarians in one or both Houses, but is independent from the government of the day. More specifically, agents of Parliament were created to support Parliament in its scrutiny and oversight of government.

Our government recognizes the important work that agents of Parliament do and how that work must reflect the high standards and accountability that Canadians expect.

Allow me to return now to my earlier remarks about the government's GIC appointments approach.

Applicants who submit their candidacy for appointment to an agent of Parliament position are subject to the government's open, transparent, and merit-based selection process approach, as well as other measures of assessment, all in addition to the already existing statutory and Standing Order requirement for approval by one or both Houses of Parliament.

If I may illustrate this again, using the position of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner as an example, candidates for this position must demonstrate, as required under the Language Skills Act, that they are able to speak and understand clearly both official languages.

The Parliament of Canada Act also requires that the commissioner must be one of the following: a former judge of a superior court in Canada, or of any other court whose members are appointed under an act of the legislator of a province; or a former Senate ethics officer or a former ethics commissioner; or a former member of a federal or provincial board, commission, or tribunal who, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, has demonstrated expertise in one or more of the following areas: conflict of interest, financial arrangements, professional regulation and discipline, and ethics.

What does this mean, in practice, for the position and all other agents of Parliament?

It starts with the application process itself. Any Canadian who feels qualified to fill the responsibilities of the position can register online and apply. In fact, if any of my colleagues know any constituents who could be a good fit for one of these positions, I would recommend they be encouraged to apply.

The government is very mindful that we want the best and most qualified people possible for these important roles. This is why each selection process for leadership positions is also supported by a recruitment strategy and the expertise of an executive search firm. This sometimes involves advertising or reaching out to targeted communities, such as professional associations and stakeholders. This process eventually results in the identification of a qualified candidate. There is also a requirement, however, that once the government has identified a candidate, that it consult with the leader of every recognized party in one or both Houses of Parliament, depending upon the legislation.

Let me be clear that under the current process, these appointments must be approved by a resolution of one or both Houses. This resolution is one that all members of this place have the right to vote on whether they agree with the appointment or not and in all instances. The reality is that the motion before us today would take that right away. Not only that, it would essentially delegate this place's power to decide to a small subcommittee composed of only three members of Parliament and the Deputy Speaker.

The House should continue to have the ability to vote on these nominations and allow the recommendations that the current committee makes to inform their vote on the motion to confirm the nomination.

I would like to take a few more minutes to touch on another example which demonstrates the progress that has been made under the new GIC appointments approach.

In August 2016, our government announced a new process for judicial appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada. Canadians were tired of patronage appointments and asked us to do things differently. As a result, we wanted to deliver on a process that assured Canadians that our new approach would be transparent, inclusive, and accountable to all Canadians.

To deliver on this commitment to Canadians, we created an independent and non-partisan advisory board. It was established to recommend qualified, functionally bilingual candidates who reflected a diversity of backgrounds and experiences. This approach respects Canadians and reflects Canada.

In September, following the retirement of Justice Thomas Cromwell, qualified lawyers and persons holding judicial office who wished to be considered for this vacancy were directed to apply to the independent advisory board for the Supreme Court of Canada judicial appointments through the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada. It is noteworthy that the advisory board was chaired by a former Conservative prime minister, the Right Hon. Kim Campbell, the first and only woman to serve as Prime Minister of Canada.

Those interested in applying were encouraged to first review the statutory requirements set out in the Supreme Court Act, as well as the statement of qualifications and assessment criteria that guided the advisory board in evaluating candidate suitability. Applicants were also told that they needed to complete and submit an application package that included a questionnaire, an authorization form, and a background check consent form.

This process led to the appointment of Justice Malcolm Rowe, a remarkably accomplished jurist, law professor, and lawyer. He also happens to be the first Newfoundlander bilingual jurist to be appointed to Canada's highest court.

This appointment was well received. A glowing profile of a Canadian lawyer described him as “A bilingual, empathetic, passionate judge”. His role as a long-time mentor of future Canadian leaders also drew praise.

Grace Pastine, litigation director for the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, told The Globe and Mail that she and others mentored by him were “dazzled by the depth of knowledge he has about how government works, about the legal and political history of Canada, and particularly Atlantic Canada.”

The objectives of our approach with Justice Rowe's appointment have guided all judicial appointments by my colleague, the Minister of Justice. This reflects our government's emphasis on transparency, merit, and diversity. We will continue to ensure the appointments of jurists who meet the highest standards of excellence and integrity.

This is a good illustration of our approach to all GIC appointments. We must ensure the process is open to all Canadians, providing them with an opportunity, should they be interested and have the required qualifications, to participate in government organizations and make a contribution to Canada's democratic institutions by serving as GIC appointees.

Transparency in the process is crucial. We ensure clear information about the requirements and steps involved in the selection process is readily available to the public. This helps us reach as many Canadians as possible and attract a strong and diverse range of highly-qualified candidates. Decisions on appointments, I should add, are publicly available.

The selection process is also based on merit. It is designed to identify highly-qualified candidates who meet the needs of the organization and are able to perform the duties of the position to which they would be appointed.

It seeks individuals who have the qualifications, and I am talking about education, experience, knowledge, skills, abilities, and personal suitability to fill the position. We also ensure they meet any statutory and/or other conditions.

Finally, we look for diversity. Our recruitment strategy seeks to attract qualified candidates who will help to achieve gender parity and reflect Canada's diversity in terms of linguistic, regional, and employment equity groups. By that I mean indigenous Canadians, women, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minority communities, as well as members of ethnic and cultural groups. With few exceptions, the government seeks to appoint bilingual Canadians to Governor in Council positions.

The Prime Minister made a personal commitment to bringing new leadership and a new approach to Ottawa. He committed to set a higher bar for openness and transparency in government. He committed to a different style of leadership, a style of leadership demanded by Canadians.

I have underlined the important roles that appointees play in our democratic institutions and I must once again point out that the motion put forth by the member opposite is fundamentally flawed. It tries to give a small subcommittee the ability to veto the appointment of an officer of Parliament without having it voted on by the House of Commons, and it thus limits the ability of all members in the House to have a say in the government's nomination of agents and officers of Parliament.

We were all elected to represent Canadians and we must all vote. The motion, as presented, would provide for an environment that could add an additional requirement and lead to delays for these appointments of important officers and agents of Parliament. Our government has committed to ensuring that all Canadians have the opportunity to serve their country through Governor in Council and other appointments.

I again encourage members of the House to promote these opportunities within their constituencies and encourage any Canadian who can add value to apply for opportunities across our institutions, including officers of Parliament.

I cannot emphasize enough that our government recognizes that tough regulations increase public confidence in their elected representatives, our public policies, and the decisions we make in the House.

Agents of Parliament represent key pillars of our democracy. They play a central role in helping us as parliamentarians to hold the government to account. This process works. Now that this new approach is hitting its stride, we will continue to see high-quality appointments being made to the judiciary, boards, and positions of leadership, including officers and agents of Parliament. Already this process has allowed us to make 170 merit-based appointments, of which 70% are women, 12% are visible minorities, and 10% are indigenous. This is a clear demonstration that we have put forward a process that reflects Canada.

I look forward to future appointments that will add to the diversity all Canadians expect their government to reflect in its appointments.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader has misread the motion. She expresses concern that a subcommittee with three members would be able to override the will of the House, but, as I understand it, the subcommittee, consisting of a nominee from each of the three recognized parties, would meet, discuss the proposed nominee, and then report back to the House, either in favour of or against, at which point there would be either an automatic concurrence debate, or else a non-concurrence debate on a recommendation against appointing a candidate.

Let us imagine Madame Meilleur being nominated and the committee rejecting her. The recommendation would be submitted to the House, there would be a concurrence debate, and the House could then refuse to accept the report and vote against concurrence. That would then allow the government to go forward, as I understand it, but perhaps the member has read this differently from the way I have.

It would merely have some moral weight, which is not a bad thing. It would serve as evidence for or against whether the proposed nominee has broad support, and that might damage the legitimacy of the candidate's candidacy, but as I understand it, the House retains its sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that oftentimes it is within the details. That is why it is important that we debate this important topic. It is a matter that we take seriously as a government, because we know that the appointment process needed to be improved, and that is why we brought in a new merit-based appointment process.

If we look at the motion before us today, we see that the end of it says, “Immediately after the presentation of a report pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order which recommends the rejection of the appointment, the proposed nomination shall be deemed withdrawn.” That is what I am referring to. If the subcommittee makes a recommendation one way or another, it is the prerogative of the committee. I could understand that, but the vote in this place matters. Every member of Parliament deserves the right to vote. I can understand that we cannot always agree, but for members to be able to register their vote is important, and that is the point I am raising.

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader appears incapable of understanding the motion that is in front of us.

In section 3, we see “...shall be presented to the House at the next earliest opportunity as a report of that Committee.” In section 4, we see “which shall stand in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons under Notices of Motions”. That is where the House of Commons then votes on the appointee for the position of officer of Parliament.

What part of this does she not understand? She said she read the motion and understands the motion, yet she rejects it based on this.

Here is the hopeful thing: if her main contention is that this motion prevents MPs from voting on the appointee and if that is her problem with the motion, then I am happy to remove that problem for her, because the motion in several instances talks about how once it comes from the subcommittee, it comes back here for a concurrence motion and the entire House of Commons votes on it.

In my 20-minute speech, I mentioned five or six times that Parliament hires and Parliament fires the officers of Parliament. That is who they work for. That is what the motion confirms.

As for the process as it is right now, I cannot believe that the government is expressing confidence in its appointments process. Ask Madeleine Meilleur how that went. Ask about the delay upon delay of all of these appointments. I read the list of the upcoming appointments that are yet to be made, and most of them have been vacant for months and months.

The Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Information Commissioner, the parliamentary budget officer, the language commissioner are all delayed because of the government's inability to appoint people properly. The most recent example shows what a disaster it was.

This motion allows for a vote in Parliament. Does the government House leader understand that? If she does, will she not support it? It is a simple question.

Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a simple question but it was quite the loaded preamble. It is unfortunate that members in this place who have the experience that he has do not rise to be able to have a respectful debate. I did not appreciate the member's opening comment labelling people as incapable and so forth. I will put that on the record.

I think we can have meaningful conversations. I think it is important that we have this debate. Something I said within it was that when it comes to the appointments process, over 170 appointments were made of great Canadians and well-qualified people.

When we want to change and improve the way we do things in this place, it will take time. It is important that we engage with Canadians and allow them to be able to apply. It perhaps might be difficult for some people to understand that we are making good appointments and that is why we want to have—

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the government House leader at the beginning of her comments say that I had somehow demeaned her in some way in saying she did not understand the motion. She then ended her comments by saying I am incapable of understanding this and demeaning it itself.

All we are trying to debate here is the facts of the motion. She has misunderstood the facts of the motion. She continues to repeat—

Mr. Speaker, I think we can have a good conversation, and what I was trying to say—and my intention was not to offend the member—was that we will have differences of opinion and it is important that we raise them so that we can improve the system and the process.

We have made great appointments. When it comes to Madeleine Meilleur, no one challenged her experience or her expertise. She has worked hard on behalf of all Canadians of all political stripes. What we are not able to do in this place is get above partisanship. Part of the comments that the member made were in regard to that, so that is what it comes down to: an open, transparent, merit-based process.

It is important that all members be able to vote, and I look forward to working with the member to see what can be done. I have always kept my door open and I always will.

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. House leader that I have the same confusion I think she does about the motion.

My colleague referred to section 4, which says, “Immediately after the presentation of a report pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order which recommends the approval of the appointment” and then states the procedure that leads to a vote.

Then in section 5, it says the reverse. It says, “Immediately after the presentation of a report pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order which recommends the rejection of the appointment, the proposed nomination shall be deemed withdrawn.” It sounds to me that there is a distinction between section 4, where there is a recommendation for approval and then there is a vote, and section 5, where it is simply deemed withdrawn after a motion.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but perhaps the House leader would agree with me that this motion is badly drafted if the intention is to have a vote on section 5.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. It is why it is important that we read the motion before us, scrutinize it, and have this debate. That is exactly what we were elected to do and that is where my concerns are coming from.

What I know is that it is important that members of Parliament—all elected to represent their constituents and all of us combined representing the best interests of this country—have a vote. That is why I believe the current new, open, transparent, and merit-based process is a good process. I believe members can help improve that process. Constructive feedback is always welcome. I have said that time and time again.

That is why the process that we brought forward is in direct response to what Canadians were demanding. They were tired of the way previous parliaments have functioned, so we wanted to bring in a new process whereby Canadians have the ability to apply and to say, “I have the qualifications. I want to serve. I want to apply.” They are able to make that decision.

That is why I say to all members that if they have constituents who they know are interested and qualified, they should encourage them to apply for these positions. That is how we will continue to ensure that we are representing the best interests of Canadians, that we are representing and reflecting the diversity of this country and ensuring that two official languages are always present and are looking at gender parity and so forth.

I know we can work better together, and that has always been my endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the last exchange. I might encourage my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley to listen in on this as well.

The government House leader, supported by the member for Mount Royal, raised concerns that this would give a kind of veto to the subcommittee. My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley has made it very clear that this is not the intention of this motion. Rather, the motion's intention is that there would be a moral weight given to the concept of genuine consultation via this subcommittee, but its advice would only be advisory and the House ultimately would determine the outcome.

There is a way to make it absolutely 100% clear that the fear expressed by the government House leader is not what is intended by this motion, and it is to do the following. It is to make an amendment to the motion in the following manner, and I invite the House leader to listen to this because I think this will answer her questions. I will not actually make a motion for an amendment; I will simply put the thought out there so that others can make a motion for an amendment a bit further on if it seems appropriate.

I would suggest that paragraph (4) be amended so that in the second line of paragraph (4), after the word “appointment”, the words “or the rejection of the appointment” be added in, and that in paragraph (5), where it says “(3)”, that be struck out and “(4)” be put in. What that would do is change it so that the motion would then read in paragraph (4): “Immediately after the presentation of a report pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order which recommends the approval of the appointment or the rejection of the appointment, the Clerk of the House shall cause”, and then it would remain the same.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very reasonable concern for you and the clerks to have. It is just a suggestion that might make sense. I do not see any point in moving forward unless the mover is agreeable to it and it would cause the government to change its direction. The government has stated that its objection to this is purely that it gives a veto to the subcommittee. I am not sure they are right in their reading of the rule, but they have indicated exactly the basis on which they say this veto exists and the amendment would allow that objection to be taken away. This would allow us to test the sincerity of the government's resolve.

As I mentioned, section (4) of the new standing order would be worded slightly differently. Section (5) would make reference to section (4), and would accomplish the goal. However, if I have mis-drafted it, because I did this very much on the fly, it gives an opportunity for others here, particularly the mover, to make a superior amendment to the one I am suggesting for the purposes of answering the concerns expressed by the government House leader. That was the purpose of what I had to say.

With that, I will move on to my prepared text. First, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Barrie—Innisfil, so I have, at this point, six minutes left, and he will be carrying on with his own comments.

I also want to talk about the scope of the proposed amendment to the standing order and exactly to whom it would apply. There are a number of officers of Parliament: the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General, the Privacy Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. All of these individuals would be covered, as well as the parliamentary budget officer who, if the budget implementation act is approved, as it almost certainly will be, will become an officer of Parliament. However, the position is named separately in the motion, just in case that does not happen. The clerk of the House of Commons and the parliamentary librarian are also covered.

These are all individuals who are acting in a manner where they are deciding upon the rules of this place. It is reasonable that there should be the support of all parties. This way of dealing with these appointments is reasonable. It is not the only way, and it may not be the best way if one is trying to conceive of the best way.

About a decade ago, when we were preparing the Conservative Party's platform for the 2006 election, I pushed very hard and was successful at getting implemented in our party's platform another system for appointing officers of Parliament. It was to be by means of a secret ballot in the House of Commons, much in the way we elect the Speaker. That made it into our election platform. After he became prime minister, Stephen Harper took up the idea with the then Liberal House leader, the current Minister of Public Safety. The Liberals said no, that we do not do that sort of thing, secret ballots, around here, and they rejected it and refused to move forward. Had that been adopted at that time, had it not been resisted by the then Liberal opposition, we would have that system in place and events like the kerfuffle over Madam Meilleur's proposed appointment would not have happened.

Is that superior to the proposal before us? Is it superior to what we suggested a decade ago? I am not sure, but what has been proposed by hon. colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley is far superior to the status quo, and it might well be superior to what I proposed a decade ago.

Going through the specific items in the motion for the proposed changes to the Standing Orders, on the whole, this is a very sensible way of covering it. Section (1) deals with all of these officers of Parliament. That is the reasonable universe that ought to be covered, so I agree with that.

The subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is a reasonable place to put these things. The procedure and House affairs committee is the committee that deals with these kinds of procedural matters, appointments, review of appointments, and so on, so that is the right place for it to go.

A subcommittee would draw upon the senior individuals who are members of the procedure and House affairs committee, but the committee itself would not be tied up, as it can be, over some area that is going to draw it away from its other business. It has to deal with reviews of the election, legislation, items of privilege, and so on. Therefore, it is reasonable that this would go to a subcommittee.

The structure of the subcommittee involves all recognized parties, which is different from unanimity. This is, again, a reasonable level at which to set it. We can have a debate and we have had debates in the past over whether, with respect to recognized parties, the net should be cast more widely. Right now, the Bloc is left out because it does not meet the 12-member criteria. However, that is a separate debate from the debate over using recognized parties.

This essentially says the major players would be involved because, let us face it, we are mostly elected as members of parties. We all understand that it is very difficult to get elected as an independent. Nobody, in fact, was elected to this Parliament as an independent. It is reasonable to say that this is a way of aggregating the various interests, the legitimate interests that are involved. I agree with that, as well.

On the issue of a report that comes back, on the whole, the way in which the report comes back, either positive or negative, is very reasonable. That is section (3) of the proposed change to the Standing Orders. The subcommittee reports back to the House. Presumably, the actual report would come from the chair of the procedure and House affairs committee, not from the subcommittee chair, but that is a reasonable way of sending it back. Then the House makes the final decision.

We cannot override statute here. The fact is that with the way the statutes are designed, the House of Commons and the Senate are the two bodies that make the decision to approve an appointment. That would not change. I suggested an alternative wording as a possibility and I leave that for others to discuss as we go forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his constructive intervention in the debate. What is strange to me is that the current process we have right now for officers of Parliament is that some folks in the Prime Minister's Office decide on somebody, they drop the name forward, and Parliament only gets to vote on that person. That is it.

We are suggesting a process whereby parliamentarians are actually engaged and we do a little checking to make sure the person is able to do the job, not just by qualifications but also by not being in a conflict of interest by being partisan.

I want to address this point specifically, and then I will ask a question. His suggestion, as I understand it, is that even if under our process this appointment goes to a subcommittee and the subcommittee looks at the person and says it cannot accept him, the government still wants to have a parliamentary vote on a rejected candidate. That is what the government is suggesting. My friend has tried to move an amendment, rather than what the government House leader did, which was to say, “I don't like this. We're just going to vote against all of it.” That is a non-constructive way to go about doing Parliament, but that is the path the government has chosen, and it can pat itself on its back for its amazing appointments process that is working out so well.

I would say that while it is a small change, it is an important change. There may be other considerations that go on. We are open to the discussion of improving any motion we put forward, particularly if we then hear from the government. The only concern the government raised was this aspect of the motion. If that concern were to be removed, it would be very interesting if the next government speaker was able to get up and offer opinions on my friend's consideration, because I think that would be actually constructive, which is what we are meant to do here in Parliament.

Is it okay if we just take some time to take a look at the language he is suggesting and make sure that over a five-part amendment, it all makes sense together? Certainly we are open to the conversation and look forward to hearing similar openness from our Liberal friends.

Mr. Speaker, I too am anxious to hear from the government side, so I will be very brief in my response in order to leave the Liberals time to ask a question or offer a comment.

I would simply say that the wording I came up with was done very much on the fly. I was trying to speak to my hon. colleague and it turned out my time to speak had started and I was unable to run the suggested wording past him. It is purely a suggestion. It is the end I am seeking, which is to ensure that the committee does not have a veto, that the government can, in fact, if it has a majority, override it and cause the appointment to have the consideration of the House of Commons. I am sure that wording can be found that accomplishes that in such a way as to relieve all the concerns expressed by the government House leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his constructive input into this discussion. I am wondering whether he agrees that there is a problem with the new appointment process. Even though the process is new and the government has nothing but good things to say about it, there were problems with the most recent appointment.

Does my colleague agree with the government that the situation is perfectly satisfactory, that everything is fine, and that there is no problem with the appointment process? Does he believe that the appointment in question should have taken place and that there is no room for improvement?

I would like him to comment on the government's response, which seems to completely ignore the problem and the risk of more problems down the road.